[From the Waterbury (Conn.) Sunday Republican, Nov. 8, 1964]

AGREED, BUT * * *

"If the presidential campaign started all over again tomorrow, there would be mass emigration."

U.S. Representative JOHN S. MONAGAN has promised to reintroduce legislation limiting presidential campaigns to 60 days, and if millions of Americans who just about made it through the last one could influence Congress Representative MONAGAN'S proposal might have some chance of adoption.

But it is generally believed that any congressional resolution telling the major parties what they should do is almost impossible to pass, and one that would cut down on their time to try to win votes would meet strenuous objection.

Not that Representative MONAGAN hasn't got a point. Long campaigns, even in an immense country with 50 States and nearly 200 million people, can become nauseously boring, as the recent presidential contest proved again. It was one of the least uplifting national campaigns within memory.

But we suspect that the nominating conventions are not going to be pushed closer to election day until the leadership of Mr. MONAGAN's party and the opposition party so desire. Perhaps sooner or later commonsense, voter outrage, or the hard bite of campaign expenses will lead the major parties to abbreviate their quadrennial efforts. In the meantime Representative MONAGAN will help if he keeps raising the question.

[From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 3, 1961]

MORE TALK OF CAMPAIGN MONEY

In the wake of a national election Congress invariably frets for a while about the high cost of running for public office. Last year was no exception. The House Special Committee To Investigate Campaign Expenses and Corrupt Practices conducted hearings when recollections of the biennial ordeal of the Representatives were still very fresh.

Judging by the past, these lose their sting rather rapidly. Yet since there always must be hope for reform, it is interesting that much emphasis was put on shortening campaigns. This would save energy, and maybe it would save money. Representative John Monagan, a Connecticut Democrat, spoke up for his bill which provides that no person nominated more than 60 days previous to the election shall run for President. Charles P. Taft, chairman of the National Fair Campaign Practices Committee, said that campaigns are so long that they become boring. Maurice Rosenblatt, of the national committee for an effective Congress, also favored shortening campaigns, but he emphasized that the law should require and enforce complete and rapid disclosure of all campaign contributions. And there, we believe, he came closer to the real need.

Gov. Luther Hodges, of North Carolina, who is to be Secretary of Commerce in the Kennedy administration, offered the opinion that no legal length on campaigns is needed since campaign managers avoid the saturation point. But he did add that it would be wise to put a ceiling on the amount of campaign expenditures, since, as it is now, the expenditures are far too great and put a premium either on wealth or dishonesty. He said: "I think stringent laws should govern contributions and expenditures."

The regulations now on the books are anything but stringent. The major national committees are held to unrealistically low limits, but the doors are left wide open for all manner of unreported campaign gifts. These are all too likely to come from persons with purposes which are anything but in the public interest. If money is not to taint democratic elections, there must be a reasonable limit on the amount to be used, and there must be full disclosure of its sources, insofar as possible before election day.

The necessary formula is clear enough, yet Congress after Congress has shied away from it. So long as this continues, there will be a shadow, more or less dark over the Members of Congress and all elected with them.

The CHAIRMAN. The second witness this morning is the general counsel of the Republican National Committee, Fred C. Scribner, Jr. Mr. Scribner, it is with a great deal of pleasure that we welcome you back before our committee. We all recall your excellent work as general counsel and Under Secretary of the Treasury Department in

President Eisenhower's administration and at that time we were privileged to have you before our committee on a number of occasions. Since then you have performed fine public service as the general counsel of the Republican National Committee and I was pleased to see that you were appointed by the Comptroller General to be a member of the Advisory Board to counsel the Comptroller General in the administration of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act. We will pay particular attention to your testimony this morning.

STATEMENT OF FRED C. SCRIBNER, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Mr. SCRIBNER. Mr. Chairman, the debates in the Senate and the hearings of this committee are effectively focusing the attention of the voters and certainly the attention of those interested in politics generally, on the very important problem of campaign finances, their proper source and so on. This attention is long overdue. This committee is to be congratulated for the attention it is giving to the problem. As a representative of the Republican National Committee, I welcome this opportunity to discuss this problem.

The Republican Party has long supported the principle that the finances of our political parties should rest on as broad a base of popular support as possible.

The sustaining membership program sponsored by the Republican National Committee demonstrates our support of this principle. In 1966, 81 percent of the total amount raised by the Republican National Committee came from contributions of $10 or less. We had almost 250,000 contributions of $10 or less.

The Republican Party urges the adoption of legislation providing tax incentives for political contributions in both primaries and general elections. Such incentives should permit the individual to decide which party or which candidate he desires to support.

In December 1965, the Republican coordinating committee urged the enactment of these principles.

We specifically favor legislation making political contributions tax deductible to an annual maximum of $100 for each individual; or $50 each for couples, where they are making separate returns.

Taxpayers taking the standard 10-percent deduction should be encouraged to contribute to parties or candidates by the addition of another line or provision to tax return forms, permitting them to take up to the $100 limit in addition to the amount of the standard 10-percent deduction taken on the short form. This is because many people do not give enough money to go above the standard deduction and they get a little plus, if you will, by taking the standard deduction. If you encourage them to make a political contribution by giving a deduction in addition to the standard, I think you will get a bit more money.

Contributions which qualify for deduction would be those made to any political committee or candidate for any Federal, State, or local office. This would therefore include primary campaigns.

We also favor the modernization of the existing statutes which provide limitations on expenditures, the amount of contributions, and governing reporting requirements.

I think in general, we support, by and large, the provisions in this area that have been submitted by the President in his most recent

message.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not understand what you said about the President's recommendations.

Mr. SCRIBNER. The President in his most recent message has made recommendations as to removal of limitations on expenditures, the amount of contributions and the filing of information and, while we do not support all of them, in general we do support those parts of his proposal.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you tell me a little bit about the sustaining membership proposal and how that works? Does that encourage a monthly contribution or is that just an annual contribution?

Mr. SCRIBNER. That is an annual contribution program, and as I understand it, the program has attained results looked upon as impossible by advertising people. Some years ago, some of our staff people had the idea that people in general are willing to make contributions to political parties and political campaigns if they could be sure the money went into the party coffers and it was made easy to make a contribution. So we tried out a direct mail approach in which we asked people to give $10, the money to be used for current expenses and supporting the operations of the national committee. Donors would receive a small card saying: "You are a supporting member of the Republican National Committee." This started in a small way and the program has grown and grown.

In like fashion, during the 1964 campaign, on all of the major TV programs which were put on, an appeal was made for contributions to be sent in to pay for the cost of the program. I believe I am correct that in every instance, we received approximately enough money from volunteer contributions coming through the mail to pay the cost of the program. This again, we were told by advertising people, was something that would not happen.

This sustaining program has built up and built up and it has an ongoing momentum. We think that it is the way money should be raised, with small amounts from hundreds of thousands of people.

The CHAIRMAN. But how about those whose income is $5,000 or less. Would you not find that most of those people in that category could not afford to make the contribution? In other words, they need the money for other purposes?

Mr. SCRIBNER. Well, again, it is, I suppose, a matter of individual choices. Many of those people that you mention give their time and their service and their effort, which are really worth more than the money. They are people who stuff the envelopes and ring the doorbells and make the telephone calls. Even people in those categories have money for those things which they think are worthwhile. Again, those are the very people I think we ought to encourage to make contributions, because if you can get somebody to give you some money for your political organization, you are pretty sure you are going to get his vote. This is a good way of bringing in people who are seriously interested in the party and its candidates.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any knowledge of the amount of money that was raised by independent committees in support of the Republican candidates in the last election, or the election before that, for President?

Mr. SCRIBNER. In 1964?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SCRIBNER. You are referring to committees on the national basis or to all committees everywhere?

The CHAIRMAN. The Republican Committee filed a statement to which many writers have adverted and we have used it ourselves, because it breaks down the expenditures of $14 million for campaign

expenses.

Mr. SCRIBNER. Of $14.5 million, I believe.

The CHAIRMAN. It is the most detailed statement that we have available to us on how campaign money was spent. There is a chart which details $14,416,324. The Democrats did not give anything in nearly that detail. I was wondering if you had any knowledge of how much more money was raised and spent in that campaign beyond that $14 million that was accounted for by the committees?

Mr. SCRIBNER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That accounted for the Republican National Committee, the Republican National Finance Operations Committee, the Republican Campaign Committee, Citizens for Goldwater-Miller, TV for Goldwater-Miller, National Goldwater-Miller Committee, and Women Go For Goldwater-Miller. Do you have any information as to how much was spent by other committees than this in support of the ticket, or in support of either Mr. Goldwater or Mr. Miller? Mr. SCRIBNER. What page are you reading from?

The CHAIRMAN. That is page 48 of this document here.

Mr. SCRIBNER. I think this report accurately summarizes the material filed in accordance with the statutes, with the Senate and the House. How much more than this was spent on the State level by committees operating in single States, how much more was spent by individuals, how much more was spent by so-called nonpolitical organizations—for example, labor organizations, I am afraid we did not get very much of that help, but it was a little-would be only a

guess.

Also important, is the fact that the dollars spent were only part of the operation. In my own State of Maine, I would gladly forfeit any help we get from all the individual contributions exceeding $200 if we could have the help of the labor organizations, because the work they do and the contacts they have are worth more votes. But we don't have them. I cannot answer your question in any more than that detail. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, some of us would forgo the support of the labor organizations if we had the support of the newspapers. Mr. SCRIBNER. When you do not have any one of those, sometimes the State changes from Republican to Democratic.

The CHAIRMAN. Or vice versa.

I would applaud this document that you have published. I would imagine, however, and I invite your reaction, that a great many people do not like to be identified by their contribution. Do you find that? I find a great many people who would like to contribute, but do not like to divulge their contribution.

Mr. SCRIBNER. From reading this book, I think you will find that some individuals contributed to both parties. There are some who, for one reason or another, like to have insurance on both sides. Certainly those people are not too enthusiastic about having the other side know that the contributions go both ways.

It is true, I think, that in some places, they are still pretty serious about their politics and people are a little reluctant to spell out just exactly what they do. I have never found that open participation in politics was a handicap, but some people, particularly those dealing with the public, seem to think that if they are partisan on one side or the other, it affects their business.

The CHAIRMAN. I have oftentimes felt that a person could well be justified in contributing to both sides just on the basis that both sides have to present their case-both sides need to be heard. The person could take the view that it is not a matter of great moment to him how the public votes, but he does think both sides have a right to be heard and the public, having heard the issue, would be in a better position to judge how it wanted to vote.

Senator Williams?

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Scribner, I appreciate your statement here and the endorsement of the principle of tax deduction. But I understand that you would not object, necessarily, to a tax credit or a deduction, whichever it may be, but that primarily, what you are endorsing is that the contribution itself be a voluntary act by the individual to the party or the candidate of his choice?

Mr. SCRIBNER. That is correct, Senator.

Senator WILLIAMS. I think that that is a principle that we must preserve.

Now, as to the more accurate and detailed reporting, would you endorse the revision of the Corrupt Practices Act that would require each individual committee, whether it operated in single States or otherwise, that all of them must make a full disclosure of their contributions and their expenditures?

Mr. SCRIBNER. Yes, sir. I think that this is essential and important if you are going to have effective reporting. I think the step, which apparently is pretty generally accepted, that reports should go to the Comptroller General or some independent office, is of relevance there also.

In this connection, you might want to consider a minimum figure below which people would not have to report, because you could just swamp an office with so many reports and so much detail that the reporting would not be meaningful.

Senator WILLIAMS. I think that the act itself carries that minimum. I understand it is around $100. But anyway, the part that I am speaking of, the loophole in the act is that political committees that are organized and operate within one State or within the District of Columbia and one State do not have to file any reports under the existing law. Revision in the law would require all of those committees, regardless of how organized, to report. That is what I was speaking of under the provision of the act.

Would you also endorse the principle that the Corrupt Practices Act should be equally applicable to primaries as well as to just the general election?

Mr. SCRIBNER. Yes, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. There is a suggestion that in the act there is a prohibition against a public official, either an elected public official or any other public officeholder, from soliciting campaign contributions from civil service employees. But the act does not prohibit any public official having those civil service employees solicited on his behalf by